Linux-mm Archive on lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Kaitao Cheng <kaitao.cheng@linux.dev>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
	Dennis Zhou <dennis@kernel.org>, Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>,
	Christoph Lameter <cl@gentwo.org>,
	Uladzislau Rezki <urezki@gmail.com>,
	Pedro Falcato <pfalcato@suse.de>,
	Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@kernel.org>,
	Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>
Cc: muchun.song@linux.dev, linux-mm@kvack.org,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	Kaitao Cheng <chengkaitao@kylinos.cn>
Subject: [PATCH v2 3/3] mm/percpu: Avoid IO/FS reclaim in backing allocations
Date: Thu,  4 Jun 2026 19:31:01 +0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20260604113101.89510-4-kaitao.cheng@linux.dev> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20260604113101.89510-1-kaitao.cheng@linux.dev>

From: Kaitao Cheng <chengkaitao@kylinos.cn>

Commit 9a5b183941b5 ("mm, percpu: do not consider sleepable
allocations atomic") allows sleepable GFP_NOIO and GFP_NOFS percpu
allocations to take pcpu_alloc_mutex.  This avoids premature allocation
failures, but it also makes the mutex visible to callers from constrained
IO/FS contexts.

Thread A calls pcpu_alloc_noprof() with GFP_KERNEL and takes
pcpu_alloc_mutex. Since the internal allocation is not constrained by
NOFS, it may enter FS reclaim while still holding pcpu_alloc_mutex,
creating a dependency like: pcpu_alloc_mutex -> fs_reclaim -> FS lock

At the same time, Thread B may already hold an FS lock and then call
pcpu_alloc_noprof() with GFP_NOFS. It will try to acquire
pcpu_alloc_mutex and block, creating the reverse dependency:
FS lock -> pcpu_alloc_mutex

This can still form a potential deadlock cycle.

Avoid the dependency by restricting percpu backing allocations to GFP_NOIO.
The public allocation still uses the caller's GFP context to decide whether
it may block, but the internal memory allocations performed while
pcpu_alloc_mutex is held cannot recurse into IO or FS reclaim.

Fixes: 9a5b183941b5 ("mm, percpu: do not consider sleepable allocations atomic")
Signed-off-by: Kaitao Cheng <chengkaitao@kylinos.cn>
---
 mm/percpu.c | 15 ++++++++++-----
 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)

diff --git a/mm/percpu.c b/mm/percpu.c
index 4d89965cba16..e6f449323064 100644
--- a/mm/percpu.c
+++ b/mm/percpu.c
@@ -1726,9 +1726,8 @@ static void pcpu_alloc_tag_free_hook(struct pcpu_chunk *chunk, int off, size_t s
  * @gfp: allocation flags
  *
  * Allocate percpu area of @size bytes aligned at @align.  If @gfp doesn't
- * contain %GFP_KERNEL, the allocation is atomic. If @gfp has __GFP_NOWARN
- * then no warning will be triggered on invalid or failed allocation
- * requests.
+ * allow blocking, the allocation is atomic. If @gfp has __GFP_NOWARN then no
+ * warning will be triggered on invalid or failed allocation requests.
  *
  * RETURNS:
  * Percpu pointer to the allocated area on success, NULL on failure.
@@ -1749,8 +1748,14 @@ void __percpu *pcpu_alloc_noprof(size_t size, size_t align, bool reserved,
 	size_t bits, bit_align;
 
 	gfp = current_gfp_context(gfp);
-	/* whitelisted flags that can be passed to the backing allocators */
-	pcpu_gfp = gfp & (GFP_KERNEL | __GFP_NORETRY | __GFP_NOWARN);
+	/*
+	 * Whitelisted flags that can be passed to the backing allocators.
+	 * Backing allocations under pcpu_alloc_mutex must not recurse into
+	 * IO/FS reclaim.  Otherwise a GFP_KERNEL caller holding the mutex can
+	 * block on reclaim while a GFP_NOIO/NOFS caller holding an IO/FS lock
+	 * waits for the same mutex.
+	 */
+	pcpu_gfp = gfp & (GFP_NOIO | __GFP_NORETRY | __GFP_NOWARN);
 	is_atomic = !gfpflags_allow_blocking(gfp);
 	do_warn = !(gfp & __GFP_NOWARN);
 
-- 
2.43.0



  parent reply	other threads:[~2026-06-04 11:32 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2026-06-04 11:30 [PATCH v2 0/3] mm/percpu: Fix possible NOFS/NOIO reclaim recursion Kaitao Cheng
2026-06-04 11:30 ` [PATCH v2 1/3] mm/vmalloc: honor GFP constraints in pcpu_get_vm_areas() Kaitao Cheng
2026-06-04 16:49   ` Uladzislau Rezki
2026-06-04 11:31 ` [PATCH v2 2/3] mm/percpu: honor GFP constraints when populating chunks Kaitao Cheng
2026-06-04 11:31 ` Kaitao Cheng [this message]
2026-06-04 19:07   ` [PATCH v2 3/3] mm/percpu: Avoid IO/FS reclaim in backing allocations Andrew Morton

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20260604113101.89510-4-kaitao.cheng@linux.dev \
    --to=kaitao.cheng@linux.dev \
    --cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=chengkaitao@kylinos.cn \
    --cc=cl@gentwo.org \
    --cc=dennis@kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
    --cc=mhocko@suse.com \
    --cc=muchun.song@linux.dev \
    --cc=pfalcato@suse.de \
    --cc=tj@kernel.org \
    --cc=urezki@gmail.com \
    --cc=vbabka@kernel.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox